It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Regardless of your opinions of 9/11 , you need to read this.

page: 23
33
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by patternfinder
 


What do you theorize it was? Most people saw a jetliner.


i don't know, but the speed that it was supposedly going would be too hard to control at just a few feet off the ground. have you ever tried to control a plane horizontally even in a cessna? i have pretty good hand eye coordination and i had an impossible time keeping it perfectly horizontal, which means that it dipped a good 6 or more feet at a time often....the air pockets make it impossible for it to be controlled to that kind of precision, i can only imagine how hard it would be trying to keep it perfectly horizontal 4 feet from the ground......especially while hitting light poles and at 530 mph, impossible.....no one can do that. you have to push and pull the "steering wheel" in order to compensate air pockets....it's just not possible.......he would have crashed right into the ground as soon as he hit a light pole......


The plane was close to the ground for less than two seconds how many control inputs can you do in two seconds.




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by patternfinder
 


What do you theorize it was? Most people saw a jetliner.


i don't know, but the speed that it was supposedly going would be too hard to control at just a few feet off the ground. have you ever tried to control a plane horizontally even in a cessna? i have pretty good hand eye coordination and i had an impossible time keeping it perfectly horizontal, which means that it dipped a good 6 or more feet at a time often....the air pockets make it impossible for it to be controlled to that kind of precision, i can only imagine how hard it would be trying to keep it perfectly horizontal 4 feet from the ground......especially while hitting light poles and at 530 mph, impossible.....no one can do that. you have to push and pull the "steering wheel" in order to compensate air pockets....it's just not possible.......he would have crashed right into the ground as soon as he hit a light pole......


Do you have a theory of what it was? I understand that you can't answer because you want it to be something else but can't come up with anything other than a jetliner that could do that damage. You think that a breakaway light pole would cause that aircraft to immediately nosedive into the ground. You don't have much feel for this physics stuff do you?
You and others say it is impossible because of "air pockets." How many air pockets do you think there were that near the ground? Do you know what "ground effect" is?
Go back and review your data and come up with a theory of what could have done what was done while accounting for all the physical evidence.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by patternfinder
 


What do you theorize it was? Most people saw a jetliner.


i don't know, but the speed that it was supposedly going would be too hard to control at just a few feet off the ground. have you ever tried to control a plane horizontally even in a cessna? i have pretty good hand eye coordination and i had an impossible time keeping it perfectly horizontal, which means that it dipped a good 6 or more feet at a time often....the air pockets make it impossible for it to be controlled to that kind of precision, i can only imagine how hard it would be trying to keep it perfectly horizontal 4 feet from the ground......especially while hitting light poles and at 530 mph, impossible.....no one can do that. you have to push and pull the "steering wheel" in order to compensate air pockets....it's just not possible.......he would have crashed right into the ground as soon as he hit a light pole......


The plane was close to the ground for less than two seconds how many control inputs can you do in two seconds.


2 seconds, hmmmm i won't even comment on that one....not worth the time....next?????



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
The official story is physically impossible


what a silly claim, what have you got to back it up?

Why ignore all the physical evidence that it was a 757? How do you explain the 757 engines, seats, undercarriage? how do you explain the DNA from the passengers on flight 77 that was found?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ozvaldo


So,... how do you explain there is NO DAMAGE either side of the whole? You seem to have conveniently avoided answering this question, and also failed to provide any proof there was damage from the wings.



Which hole are you talking about

this one:




Or this one.



edit on 25-8-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by patternfinder
 


What do you theorize it was? Most people saw a jetliner.


i don't know, but the speed that it was supposedly going would be too hard to control at just a few feet off the ground. have you ever tried to control a plane horizontally even in a cessna? i have pretty good hand eye coordination and i had an impossible time keeping it perfectly horizontal, which means that it dipped a good 6 or more feet at a time often....the air pockets make it impossible for it to be controlled to that kind of precision, i can only imagine how hard it would be trying to keep it perfectly horizontal 4 feet from the ground......especially while hitting light poles and at 530 mph, impossible.....no one can do that. you have to push and pull the "steering wheel" in order to compensate air pockets....it's just not possible.......he would have crashed right into the ground as soon as he hit a light pole......


Do you have a theory of what it was? I understand that you can't answer because you want it to be something else but can't come up with anything other than a jetliner that could do that damage. You think that a breakaway light pole would cause that aircraft to immediately nosedive into the ground. You don't have much feel for this physics stuff do you?
You and others say it is impossible because of "air pockets." How many air pockets do you think there were that near the ground? Do you know what "ground effect" is?
Go back and review your data and come up with a theory of what could have done what was done while accounting for all the physical evidence.


oh, i'm sorry, maybe i should be more clear, i use to fly my ex brother inlaw's cessna...many times....i have an intimate understanding of what it takes to keep those little horizontal lines on the dash matched up...and i'm telling you, at 530 mph the ground comes up at you so friggin quick, in a fraction of a second.....THE SLIGHTEST mis movement of your hand on the steering wheel would be instant devastation, kiss any control you might think someone would have good bye.......



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Elbereth
 


that is not true :On Saturday, July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building, between the 78th and 80th floors, carving an 18 ft x 20 ft hole in the building. Despite the damage and loss of life, the building was open for business on many floors on the following Monday.

Frank A. De Martini, Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management:
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded [Boeing] 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

edit on 25-8-2011 by bsmaddux because: still new to the sight and figuring things out...not sure how to add what was said that I am replying to



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


It´s aerodynamically impossible to fly a large wing Boeing airliner horizontally feet off the ground at 530 mph.

I´ve seen no credible evidence of any airliner wreckage at the site. The official story is just contrived bunk.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by galdur
The official story is physically impossible


what a silly claim, what have you got to back it up?

Why ignore all the physical evidence that it was a 757? How do you explain the 757 engines, seats, undercarriage? how do you explain the DNA from the passengers on flight 77 that was found?



i can't explain any of that because you didn't provide any sources of these accusations....i haven't heard of any of that yet, please enlighten us....



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

2 seconds, hmmmm i won't even comment on that one....not worth the time....next?????


Look at the FDR readout Truther.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by pteridine
 


It was in effect landing. It was flying horizontally feet off the ground at 530 mph. This is a physical impossibility. It´´s third grade stuff.


So what should it have done that was physically possible? Should it have flown over the building, exploded in mid air, or crashed into the ground?


I think that was discussed in the link.

Let me state my position:.

The media have been run by the CIA since the 40s.
The Internet is part of media.
I contend the Truth Movement and conspiracy sites like this one are part of the CIA's disinformation program, with representatives on both sides tasked with directing and managing public perception and directing suspicion away from the media.
I contend since most of the content on this 911 forum is limited to anything but the media, that this is an example of that effort, and that posters who continually derail conversations with irrelevant comments are as well.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


that's comical...he shows us a pic of the hole after the building collapsed and it even shows the spools in tact and right in front of the hole after the plane supposedly "hit them and made them roll" ha h ahahahahahahahahahahaha



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Ozvaldo

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Ozvaldo
 


So,... how do you explain there is NO DAMAGE either side of the whole? You seem to have conveniently avoided answering this question, and also failed to provide any proof there was damage from the wings.



Which hole are you talking about

this one:




Or this one.





Impossible to tell what's going on in the 1st pic.

As for the 2nd one?? It proves my point EXACTLY. No marks on the wall WHATSOEVER next to the hole.
As for the long white thingy the red arrow points too? lol - clutching straws.

Thanks for your time though, have a great day.




edit on 25-8-2011 by Ozvaldo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by pteridine
 


It was in effect landing. It was flying horizontally feet off the ground at 530 mph. This is a physical impossibility. It´´s third grade stuff.


So what should it have done that was physically possible? Should it have flown over the building, exploded in mid air, or crashed into the ground?


I think that was discussed in the link.

Let me state my position:.

The media have been run by the CIA since the 40s.
The Internet is part of media.
I contend the Truth Movement and conspiracy sites like this one are part of the CIA's disinformation program, with representatives on both sides tasked with directing and managing public perception and directing suspicion away from the media.
I contend since most of the content on this 911 forum is limited to anything but the media, that this is an example of that effort, and that posters who continually derail conversations with irrelevant comments are as well.


What hit the Pentagon? Do you have a theory? Is it consistent with the data at hand?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Do you deny the media have been controlled by the CIA since the 40's?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

i can't explain any of that because you didn't provide any sources of these accusations....i haven't heard of any of that yet, please enlighten us....










posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Ozvaldo
 


Show a wider view of this area. You can find many photos on many sites that show the details of the impact area.
edit on 8/25/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ozvaldo

As for the 2nd one?? It proves my point EXACTLY. No marks on the wall WHATSOEVER next to the hole.


Thats what I thought. Thanks Truther.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Ozvaldo
 


That looks like the exit hole, Ozzie. Try again. Thanks for your time.


Is that the best you can up with after I've BLATANTLY proved a point to you? lol

I rest my case.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I am asking what you think hit the Pentagon not about a CIA conspiracy. Do you have a theory consistent with the data?



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join